On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 08:02, Rens Admiraal wrote: > Helgi, > > quote: > As a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MS discount anymore > support/updates to win98 sometime this year, thus making that OS even > more unsecure, so maybe like I pointed out above, is too much work to > support such legacy OS. > > Supporting an OS is also depending on how many people are still using it, don't you think? > If I would even count how many times I still have to make full 800*600 support on my projects, and still having complaints that people can't see the complete screen, and have to scroll to much... There are still people using 640*480... And, isn't that old? So, win98 support looks useful to me... > > And, greg, sorry, I don't have it :-) > Hi, Well, yes, but we're talking about servers here, not desktop users, also in addition like I said before, those are all my personal thoughts, not something that should be done rather then something else, but like I raised before, we do have to keep in mind that sometimes laying of some support is needed if that keeps the code simpler and more maintainable, thus less time has to be spent on it, like for example, we could *probably* (I'm saying this though with out being sure) make PEAR support also PHP's lower then 4.2.0 with some extra code, thus more maintenance has to be done and thus the code becomes more complex, but it all comes down to the person that will maintain this all, so greg it's mostly up to you IMHO since I guess you'll maintain this. </personal_rant> Regards Helgi > Helgi Þormar wrote: > > Hi > > > > Look at http://www.php.net/windows > > like that page says as of 4.3.0 windows 95 isn't supported, so I guess > > win98 is still supported ;) and for 4.2.0 windows 95 should work (which > > of course is the current version PEAR needs at least, or did you higher > > that number up in 1.4 ?) > > > > Here's my personal opinion, be aware ;) I think we should give up on > > windows 95/98 and ME, because no healthy person uses that as a server > > (well development env is maybe a different story) > > > > But what we should do to keep flexibility and compatibility is to follow > > what PHP does, and thus we should have support for win98, and even 95 if > > we'll have the required PHP version still at 4.2.0 > > > > But then we come down to maintenance cost/time (time is money so it's > > all the same) and if removing the win98 support in PEAR 1.4.0 makes > > things more simpler then that's probably the best road to go. > > > > As a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MS discount anymore > > support/updates to win98 sometime this year, thus making that OS even > > more unsecure, so maybe like I pointed out above, is too much work to > > support such legacy OS. > > > > Regards > > Helgi > > > > On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 04:51, Greg Beaver wrote: > > > > > As I understand it, PHP no longer actively supports windows 98 (correct > > > me if I'm wrong). I wonder if we can go the same route in PEAR safely? > > > If so, I can simplify the pear.bat file, making go-pear completely > > > unnecessary for a default installation using the techniques described in > > > my email to pear-dev regarding testing a batch file in windows 98. > > > > > > This would affect PEAR 1.4.0 and newer > > > > > > Greg > > > > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
